- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12713 CRL.P No. 3437 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3437 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. RAJU D.Y. @ RAJANNA D.Y S/O DODDA RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 124/A, 5TH MAIN, 3RD STAGE, BASAVESHWARANAGARA, BENGALURU – 560 079. (THE CORRECT NAME OF THIS PETITIONER IS RAJU D.Y @ RAJANNA, BUT IN FIR AND COMPLAINT IT IS STATED AS Y.D.RAJU AND IN CHARGE SHEET IT IS SHOWN AS RAJU.D.Y. AND IN CRL.MISC.NO.1275/2022 AS D.Y.RAJANNA) 2. SRI. RPASHANTH H Y S/O D Y RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 124/A, 5TH MAIN, 3RD STAGE, BASAVESHWARANAGARA, BENGALURU – 560 079. 3. SRI. KIRAN S/O D Y RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.124/A 5TH MAIN, 3RD STAGE BASAVESHWARANAGARA BANGALORE – 560 079. 4. SRI. SANJEEVA S/O SIDDU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12713 CRL.P No. 3437 of 2024 RESIDING AT KARAKKI SITE K KELAGURU, KALASA HO AND POST CHIKKAMAGALURU – 577 124. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V B SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KALASA POLICE STATION CHIKKAMAGALURU REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560 001. 2. SMT. MADHAVI W/O MALLIKARJUNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT AMBAATIRTHA MAVINAKERE, VILLAGE, KALASA HO AND POST CHIKKAMAGALURU KARNATAKA – 577 124. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M R PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SHIVAPPA S JATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482(1) CR.PC PRAYING TO ORDER FOR QUASH OF CHARGE SHEET DATED 17.07.2023 FILED BY THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOPPA SUB DIVISION KOPPA CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT OFFENCE PREVAILED UNDER SEC.447, 354, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC IN CR.NO.85/2022 AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12713 CRL.P No. 3437 of 2024 ORAL ORDER The petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4, who are facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 354(B), 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC are before this Court seeking the following reliefs: a. To Quash quash of Charge Sheet dated 17.07.2023 filed by The Assistant Superintendent of Police, Koppa Sub Division, Koppa Chikmagaluru District offences prevailed under Section 447, 354, 504, 506 read with Section 34, IPC, in Crime No.85/2022; b. To quash the FIR dated 25.12.2022 in Cr.No.85/2022 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudigere for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 354, 504, 506 read with Section 34, IPC; c. To quash the proceedings initiated before the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Mudigere in C.C.No.1041/2023. d. Costs of the Petition. 2. The prosecution alleges that on 25.12.2022, the petitioners/accused formed an unlawful assembly, criminally trespassed into the complainant’s house, abused her in vulgar language, assaulted her, and outraged her modesty. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a sale agreement was executed between the petitioners and the defacto-complainant, granting possession to the petitioners. The FIR was lodged only after the petitioners issued a legal notice requesting the 2nd respondent to execute a registered sale deed. Furthermore, the petitioners have filed a - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12713 CRL.P No. 3437 of 2024 suit for specific performance of the sale agreement. Therefore, the dispute pertains to the terms and conditions of the sale agreement, although there is a criminal aspect involving the petitioners and the complainant’s husband. 4. In response, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent argued that the alleged sale agreement is a fabricated document. The charge sheet materials reveal the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioners, and the veracity of these allegations can be examined during the trial. Additionally, the complainant’s husband has filed a private complaint against the petitioners for forging the signature and creating the sale agreement. 5. The learned High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) for the respondent-State reiterated the submissions of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 6. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the following observations are made: 7. The statements of the complainant and the charge sheet witnesses indicate that, aside from general and omnibus allegations, there is no specific overt act attributed to each accused detailing how they abused the complainant and the witnesses in vulgar language or outraged the complainant’s modesty. The complainant stated that all the accused pulled her hair and pushed her to the ground. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12713 CRL.P No. 3437 of 2024 8. Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) stipulates that whoever assaults or uses criminal force against a woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of not less than one year, which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to a fine. 9. In this case, apart from alleging that the petitioners/accused pushed and pulled the complainant’s hair, there is no substantial evidence to establish that they intended to outrage her modesty or knew that their actions would likely do so. Furthermore, the general and omnibus allegations lack specific overt acts by the petitioners/accused that would constitute an offence under Section 354 of the IPC. Intentional insults that do not result in a breach of public peace or the commission of another offence by the complainant due to threats from the petitioners/accused do not constitute offences under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC. 10. Therefore, in the absence of essential elements to constitute the aforementioned offences and specific overt acts, continuing the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the legal process. The trial court cannot frame a charge against the petitioners without specific overt acts. Moreover, the dispute between the parties, concerning the alleged sale agreement executed by the complainant’s husband in favor of the petitioners/accused, is purely civil in nature. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12713 CRL.P No. 3437 of 2024 11. In light of the above observations, the following order is passed: ORDER i. The petition is allowed. ii. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.1041/2023 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudigere is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE JS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8